无监护父母对未成年人违法行为的监管责任:以最高法院2020Da240021号判决书(2022年4月14日)为中心

Na-Rae Kim
{"title":"无监护父母对未成年人违法行为的监管责任:以最高法院2020Da240021号判决书(2022年4月14日)为中心","authors":"Na-Rae Kim","doi":"10.38133/cnulawreview.2022.42.3.343","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recently, the Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the non-custodial parent is not responsible for supervising illegal activities of underage children in principle and are liable for supervision only when there are special circumstances such as doing general and routine guidance for underage children or being able to specifically predict the illegal activities of underage children. This ruling will serve as a precedent for determining whether a non-custodial parent is liable for damages for illegal activities of underage children. However, this attitude of the Supreme Court needs to be reviewed in terms of the relationship between parents and children after divorce, the burden of liability for damages of parenting parents raising underage children, and the victim's relief and responsibility for proof. \nIf the non-custodial parent is excluded from supervisor responsibility for minors in principle, the responsibility of the custodial-parent after divorce is significant, and it is worrisome that if the parent exercises the right to interview and pays child support only when he or she wants, he or she will be free from the responsibility for illegal activities. And, under the current civil law, the basis for supervisor responsibility for illegal activities of underage children varies depending on whether they are capable of responsibility. The basis determines whether the victim should prove the supervisor's negligence and causal relationship. In addition, in order to hold the non-custodial parent responsible as a supervisor, it is quite difficult for the victim to be rescued from the damage because the victim must prove a special situation. \nAccordingly, regardless of whether or not a minor has the responsibility, the supervisor must be liable for damages to a third party, and the non-custodial parent needs to change the burden of proof for the special circumstances in which the non-custodial parent is liable. Specifically, the proposed amendment to the civil law is as follows. Article 755 (1) “The parents are responsible, regardless of whether a minor who has caused damage to another person has the ability to be responsible. However, in the case of a parent's divorce, he/she shall not be liable if the non-custodial parent proves that he/she is not responsible.” And in paragraph 2, “If a person who inflicted damage on another person is not responsible pursuant to Article 754, the person who is obligated to supervise him/her is liable for compensation.” However, this is not the case if the person liable for supervision has not neglected his/her supervisory obligation. Paragraph 3 includes the contents of Article 755 (2) of the current Civil Act.","PeriodicalId":288398,"journal":{"name":"Institute for Legal Studies Chonnam National University","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Responsibility of supervisors for illegal activities of minors by non-custodial parent: Focused on the Supreme Court Decision 2020Da240021 Delivered on April 14, 2022\",\"authors\":\"Na-Rae Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.38133/cnulawreview.2022.42.3.343\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Recently, the Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the non-custodial parent is not responsible for supervising illegal activities of underage children in principle and are liable for supervision only when there are special circumstances such as doing general and routine guidance for underage children or being able to specifically predict the illegal activities of underage children. This ruling will serve as a precedent for determining whether a non-custodial parent is liable for damages for illegal activities of underage children. However, this attitude of the Supreme Court needs to be reviewed in terms of the relationship between parents and children after divorce, the burden of liability for damages of parenting parents raising underage children, and the victim's relief and responsibility for proof. \\nIf the non-custodial parent is excluded from supervisor responsibility for minors in principle, the responsibility of the custodial-parent after divorce is significant, and it is worrisome that if the parent exercises the right to interview and pays child support only when he or she wants, he or she will be free from the responsibility for illegal activities. And, under the current civil law, the basis for supervisor responsibility for illegal activities of underage children varies depending on whether they are capable of responsibility. The basis determines whether the victim should prove the supervisor's negligence and causal relationship. In addition, in order to hold the non-custodial parent responsible as a supervisor, it is quite difficult for the victim to be rescued from the damage because the victim must prove a special situation. \\nAccordingly, regardless of whether or not a minor has the responsibility, the supervisor must be liable for damages to a third party, and the non-custodial parent needs to change the burden of proof for the special circumstances in which the non-custodial parent is liable. Specifically, the proposed amendment to the civil law is as follows. Article 755 (1) “The parents are responsible, regardless of whether a minor who has caused damage to another person has the ability to be responsible. However, in the case of a parent's divorce, he/she shall not be liable if the non-custodial parent proves that he/she is not responsible.” And in paragraph 2, “If a person who inflicted damage on another person is not responsible pursuant to Article 754, the person who is obligated to supervise him/her is liable for compensation.” However, this is not the case if the person liable for supervision has not neglected his/her supervisory obligation. Paragraph 3 includes the contents of Article 755 (2) of the current Civil Act.\",\"PeriodicalId\":288398,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Institute for Legal Studies Chonnam National University\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Institute for Legal Studies Chonnam National University\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.38133/cnulawreview.2022.42.3.343\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Institute for Legal Studies Chonnam National University","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.38133/cnulawreview.2022.42.3.343","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近,大法院首次裁定,无监护权的父母原则上不负责监督未成年子女的违法行为,只有在对未成年子女进行一般性和常规性指导或能够具体预测未成年子女的违法行为等特殊情况下才有监督责任。这一判决将成为判定无监护权的父母是否对未成年子女的非法行为承担损害赔偿责任的先例。但是,大法院的这种态度需要从离婚后父母与子女的关系、抚养未成年子女的父母的损害赔偿责任、受害者的救济和举证责任等方面加以审视。如果原则上将无监护权的父母排除在未成年人的监护责任之外,离婚后监护权的父母的责任就会很大,如果父母行使面谈权,只在自己想要的时候支付子女抚养费,就会免除违法行为的责任,这令人担忧。而且,在现行民法中,未成年子女违法行为的监督责任依据因其是否有责任能力而异。该依据决定了被害人是否应当证明监督人的过失和因果关系。此外,为了让无监护权的父母承担监督责任,由于受害者必须证明有特殊情况,因此受害者很难从损害中获救。因此,无论未成年人是否负有责任,监护人都必须对第三人承担损害赔偿责任,非监护父母需要针对非监护父母承担责任的特殊情况变更举证责任。具体来说,民法修正案的建议如下:第755条第1款“未成年人对他人造成损害,无论其是否有责任能力,父母都有责任。但是,在父母一方离婚的情况下,如果无监护权的父母证明他/她没有责任,他/她不承担责任。”第二款规定:“对他人造成损害的人,依照第七百五十四条的规定不负赔偿责任的,对他负有监督义务的人应当承担赔偿责任。”但是,如果监督责任人没有忽视自己的监督义务,情况就不是这样。第3项包括现行民法第755条第2项的内容。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Responsibility of supervisors for illegal activities of minors by non-custodial parent: Focused on the Supreme Court Decision 2020Da240021 Delivered on April 14, 2022
Recently, the Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the non-custodial parent is not responsible for supervising illegal activities of underage children in principle and are liable for supervision only when there are special circumstances such as doing general and routine guidance for underage children or being able to specifically predict the illegal activities of underage children. This ruling will serve as a precedent for determining whether a non-custodial parent is liable for damages for illegal activities of underage children. However, this attitude of the Supreme Court needs to be reviewed in terms of the relationship between parents and children after divorce, the burden of liability for damages of parenting parents raising underage children, and the victim's relief and responsibility for proof. If the non-custodial parent is excluded from supervisor responsibility for minors in principle, the responsibility of the custodial-parent after divorce is significant, and it is worrisome that if the parent exercises the right to interview and pays child support only when he or she wants, he or she will be free from the responsibility for illegal activities. And, under the current civil law, the basis for supervisor responsibility for illegal activities of underage children varies depending on whether they are capable of responsibility. The basis determines whether the victim should prove the supervisor's negligence and causal relationship. In addition, in order to hold the non-custodial parent responsible as a supervisor, it is quite difficult for the victim to be rescued from the damage because the victim must prove a special situation. Accordingly, regardless of whether or not a minor has the responsibility, the supervisor must be liable for damages to a third party, and the non-custodial parent needs to change the burden of proof for the special circumstances in which the non-custodial parent is liable. Specifically, the proposed amendment to the civil law is as follows. Article 755 (1) “The parents are responsible, regardless of whether a minor who has caused damage to another person has the ability to be responsible. However, in the case of a parent's divorce, he/she shall not be liable if the non-custodial parent proves that he/she is not responsible.” And in paragraph 2, “If a person who inflicted damage on another person is not responsible pursuant to Article 754, the person who is obligated to supervise him/her is liable for compensation.” However, this is not the case if the person liable for supervision has not neglected his/her supervisory obligation. Paragraph 3 includes the contents of Article 755 (2) of the current Civil Act.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信